Jem Raid wrote:
Make a gainclone

I did, while I waited months and months for Stewart Pinkerton to design
and build a silicon homage to my KISS 300B which was calling KISASS.
Unfortunately, Pinko's design turned out so stinko that even he refused
to build it.

The articles about my opamp minimum amplifier are he
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
the circuit is here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...20mGBschem.jpg
and the photo is here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

You can then change the components and hear the differences.

:-)

Jem

ps It's no bollox, hairy or otherwise though I can't imagine what the
otherwise would be.

Shaved, smooth, oiled, muscular?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

In article .com, Andre Jute
wrote:
OK, what about-

The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

What am I supposed to infer from a phrase like "a different class of person,
one of culture rather than a technician", if not the suggestion that "culture"
and technical knowledge are somehow mutually exclusive?

I didn't say that. You concluded it (inference is another process) from
your own prejudice that culture is superior to technical concerns.

I was quoting by means of "cut & paste" exactly what you *did* say, so I have no
idea what you can mean by declaring that you didn't say it. The phrase referring to
culture rather than technology came from you. Expressions of the form "X rather
than Y" are usually intended to suggest that X and Y are different. You're entitled
to use any words you like but if you don't use them in conventional ways, others
will have difficulty understanding your meaning.

Rod.

It is a truism that musical and mathematical ability often coincide
Pinkerton.

No it isn't. Some mathematicians are indeed musical, but professional
musicians are much closer to the creative personality on key factors as
measured by the Cattell 16PF (with supporting data on Holland
Occupational Scales showing a cluster of AES as much more common in
musicians, and of course I being a priotity in mathematicians) see
Evans A "Secrets of Musical Confidence" (HarperCollins) and Evans A
"Sectrets of Performing Confidence" (A&C Black). Data from the 16PF
users manual also shows different profiles for mathematicians and
engineers on a number of the 16 factors, as above. In terms of
research, Revesz (1953) found that only 9% of professional musicians
had mathematical talent or interest in mathematics. Shuter (1964) found
zero correlation between the Wing tests and the Admiralty mathematics
tests. Where there is some interesting data is in particular fields of
research demanding high spatial ability, which include high level
mathematics and indeed other scientific subjects. The common factor
here may be research/creativity rather than general mathematical
ability as might be found in administrative posts such as accountancy
or banking. Vernon's data (1933) showed that 60% of Oxford University
scientists were members of the Oxford Music club as opposed to 15% for
the university as a whole. Revesz's research into the actual musical
ability of mathematicians in terms of tests of aural ability were much
less indicative. Music does seem to relate more to spatial ability
(right hemisphere) than verbal ability (left hemisphere) -
particularly in terms of improvisation (Webster 1979) - and this would
favour a correlation with other "creatives" within all fields,
including but not limited to science. Interestingly, though, Shuter's
research shows that professional musicians (particularly classical)
became progressively more left brained as they tended to analyse music
more, while non-musicians continued with more spatial/emotive responses
to music. Against this, Karma's research (1980) seemed - confusingly -
to go in an opposite direction. Summing up this evidence, there is no
conclusive link, and it would seem that personality factors place
musicians close to creatives, while the link with scientists would
favour those involved in research rather than process, and would be
associated with common "creative" personality factors rather than
mathematical ability per se or a tendency to occupational preferences
involving the use of number.

Emotion is of course the difference between art and "engineering":

No, it isn't. Pinkerton

It would be both anecdotal and misguided to refer to both as
"passionate about their work" since this might equally be true of
hairdressers or mass murderers. There is Myers Briggs data relating to
the third factor Thinking-Feeling, and on this artists and musicians
are some way apart. My own data (Evans A, "Secrets of Performing
Confidence" A&C Black) shows artists as generally skewed towards
feeling (n for male/female being roughly similar, since this is also a
factor that would weight it) in different proportions when subdivided
into classical music, popular music, theatre and dance. The MBTI
handbook shows System Analysts, for instance as T 80% and several other
engineers as T 50%, whereas we fall to 51% before we find the first
group of arts subjects - actors (this agrees with my differentials
showing actors as more T than musicians). Artists and Entertainers as a
larger data grouping (n = 378) were 44% on this. The binary of
Thinking-Feeling, while not strictly the same as "passionate about
their work" which you seem to have extrapolated, would at least show a
tendency towards emotion rather than rational process, which I believe
was the initial point.

I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what
he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic'

That is complete and utter nonsense and not based on anything I've
said, though it seems a commonplace on this ng to find myself
misrepresented. To take up the point about the "engineers personality"
which seems to have come in for some discussion here, we already know
that engineers as a general grouping (n=986) are T 50% on the MBTI and
as high as 80% in the case of operations and systems analysis, which
differs from artists as 44% (see other posting in this thread) - this
would be one differentiating factor that Andre may have alluded to. It
would also be interesting to look at factor A on the Catell 16PF which
we know to be skewed downwards in scientists, engineers and indeed
academics. My data on both popular and classical musicians on Factor A
puts them around the norm for UK adults at sten score 5. (Evans A
"Secrets of Musical Confidence, HarperCollins), while engineers would
be significantly lower particularly if they were also academics.
Entertainers can be significantly A+. People with low scores on A+ are
said by Cattell (1957) to be “obstructive, cantankerous, inflexible,
rigid, cool, indifferent, secretive, anxious, suspicious, hostile,
egotistical and dry – apparently not such a pleasant person to have as
a friend”. I leave it to the imagination to figure if this applies to
members of this newsgroup. High scorers on this he described as
“warmhearted, adaptable, attentive to people, frank, emotional,
expressive, trustful, impulsive, generous and co-operative” (evidently
an easier person to have as a friend). So it seems that Andre's
attempted distinction between engineering and what he referred to as
"culture" (rather loose word) would certainly hold for parameters such
as expressiveness and emotionality (again see other posts on this
thread). I believe that this factor, probably more than any other,
gives a much needed reference for what has been a rather woolly debate
in strictly psychometric personality terms. Catell goes on to say many
things, of which the following is relevant, since it relates to the
frustration and animosity displayed by those low in factor A towards
those scoring higher on A (arts in general, and particularly
entertainers, but also health workers which relates to my own case).
"Social workers have to adapt cheerfully and flexibly to a lot of
compromises with human failings and to accept a ceaseless impact of
never entirely soluble emotional problems that might drive the exact
logician or the careful electrician mad”.
The clinical data shows more psychopathology for lower A scores, such
as social avoidance, critical detachment, flatness of affect or a
history of unsatisfactory relationships, and it would be recommended
that clinicians encountering scores of 1 or 2 should check for
“burnt-child” reactions associated with unrewarding and austere
relationships in early years. Changes in factor A can be attributed to
situational factors such as occupation, so some caution in interpreting
the above is recommended, though there is also evidence of relative
long term stability and also hereditary tendencies.

I'll not hold my breath waiting for Andy to explain in clear terms what

he means. Because he doesn't believe in accepted measurements, but some
form of 'magic' ventured Plowman.

Don't be so quick to dismiss magic as a human phenomenon - it's an
interesting subject of study. I owe some interest in it to my friend
Jerry Sadowitz who wrote the forward to my book "This Virtual Life -
Escapism and Simulation in our Media World" (Fusion Press, 2001) .
Magic is found in pp 18 to 22, together with Illusion, Paranormal
Psychology, the Psychology of Deception and the magician as escapist.
It is no surprise for me to find you routinely dismissive of some of
the more interesting aspects of human behaviour - others like to keep a
more open mind to psychological aspects of our social interactions.

Andy Evans wrote:

It would be both anecdotal and misguided to refer to both as
"passionate about their work" since this might equally be true of
hairdressers or mass murderers. There is Myers Briggs data relating to
the third factor Thinking-Feeling, and on this artists and musicians
are some way apart. My own data (Evans A, "Secrets of Performing
Confidence" A&C Black) shows artists as generally skewed towards
feeling (n for male/female being roughly similar, since this is also a
factor that would weight it) in different proportions when subdivided
into classical music, popular music, theatre and dance. The MBTI
handbook shows System Analysts, for instance as T 80% and several
other engineers as T 50%, whereas we fall to 51% before we find the
first group of arts subjects - actors (this agrees with my
differentials showing actors as more T than musicians). Artists and
Entertainers as a larger data grouping (n = 378) were 44% on this.
The binary of Thinking-Feeling, while not strictly the same as
"passionate about their work" which you seem to have extrapolated,
would at least show a tendency towards emotion rather than rational
process, which I believe was the initial point.

Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How were the
two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness and
feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's scores? In
other words, could a person be identified as 'stronger' in a given aspect
than another person? Could a person be stronger than another in both
aspects? If there are individuals who are notably strong in both aspects,
did any particular groups predominate?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com

Wally asked
Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How
were the two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness
and feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's
scores?

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not population
norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored between
opposite poles it is only possible to have a central tendency, not be
'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking would indicate a
rational disposition, inclined to make logical choices, able to make
tough decisions with people, a liking for 'principles' which can be
reasoned, and a liking for justice and fairness. Sensitive to
injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling preference is more concerned
with empathy, harmony, communication between people including
non-verbal communication and a pay-back system more akin to 'I'm a good
guy so people should like and praise me". Sensitive to betrayal and
being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Wally asked
Interesting. How was the thinkingness and feelingness measured? How
were the two aspects scored? As percentages of a person's thinkingness
and feelingness, or rated in some way compared with other people's
scores?

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not population
norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored between
opposite poles it is only possible to have a central tendency, not be
'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking would indicate a
rational disposition, inclined to make logical choices, able to make
tough decisions with people, a liking for 'principles' which can be
reasoned, and a liking for justice and fairness. Sensitive to
injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling preference is more concerned
with empathy, harmony, communication between people including
non-verbal communication and a pay-back system more akin to 'I'm a good
guy so people should like and praise me". Sensitive to betrayal and
being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Andy Evans wrote:

In the MBTI the scores are for 'strength of preference', not
population norms as on the Cattell 16PF. Since the factors are scored
between opposite poles it is only possible to have a central
tendency, not be 'strong on both'. A strong preference for Thinking
would indicate a rational disposition, inclined to make logical
choices, able to make tough decisions with people, a liking for
'principles' which can be reasoned, and a liking for justice and
fairness. Sensitive to injustice, which can cut deep. A Feeling
preference is more concerned with empathy, harmony, communication
between people including non-verbal communication and a pay-back
system more akin to 'I'm a good guy so people should like and praise
me". Sensitive to betrayal and being ignored/belittled.
There are four factors on the MBTI, which gives 16 personality types,
commonly identified by a four letter code. The test is popular and
widely used, and originally came from the ideas of Jung. Andy.

Thanks for that, Andy. I think I've seen the four-letter code thing, now
that you mention it. I asked about the scoring, and whether a person could
be strong in both (perhaps at different times), because it seems to me that
thinkingness and feelingness are states of mind - each a sort of
psychological 'mode' that one can be in. If it's reasonable to say that a
person can be in different states of mind at different times, then it
doesn't seem too great a stretch to suggest that a person can be in a
logical, thinking mode some of the time, and in a feeling 'arty' mode at
other times - I don't see that one neccessarily precludes the other.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
http://iott.melodolic.com